Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Over Lane Barn, Baslow, Derbyshire The information and advice contained in this report has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions.

Peak Ecology is accredited under ISO9001 and as such this report follows the styles and formatting template set out within our Quality Management Form.

## CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of Report ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Zone of Influence ...................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Planning Context and Legislation ............................................................................. 3

2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment ........................................................................... 4 2.2 Scoping for Protected and Priority Species ............................................................... 6 2.3 Surveyors .................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 7

3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Site Assessment ........................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Protected and Priority Species ................................................................................ 11

4 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Designated sites ....................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Habitats .................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Protected and Priority Species ................................................................................ 13

5 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................. 15 5.1 Development Proposals ........................................................................................... 15 5.2 Protected and Priority Species ................................................................................ 15 5.3 Ecological Enhancement .......................................................................................... 16

6 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 18

7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX A : Protected and Priority Species ............................................................... 20 APPENDIX B : Relevant Legislation .............................................................................. 22 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Location map\*........................................................................................................... 2 Table 1: Guidelines for assessing roost and habitat suitability (Collins (ed), 2016).................. 4 Table 2: Guidance for assessing the overall value of potential development sites for bats (Collins (ed), 2016))........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Location of potential bat roost features........................................................................ 11 Table 3. Overview – Potential mitigation measures, recommendations and/or further survey work ... 18 Species-Specific Wildlife Legislation .......................................................................................... 23 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of Report

This report has been prepared by Peak Ecology Ltd on behalf of 5Seventy3 Ltd. It provides the results of a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment associated with a proposed residential redevelopment of a barn at Over Lane House, Baslow, Derbyshire. The purpose of this report is to:

- Describe the ecological baseline of the site, including existing habitats, presence of protected and priority species (see Appendix A for details);
- Confirm presence / likely absence of roosting bats (to currently accepted standards for confidence in a negative result);
- Highlight potential significant ecological impacts associated with the proposals;
- Provide recommendations for mitigation and/or avoidance measures where appropriate;
- Identify any need for licensing by Natural England;
- Assess the significance of any residual impacts;
- Highlight opportunities for ecological enhancement where appropriate; and
- Set out requirements for post-construction monitoring.

In relation to planning and development, this report provides all relevant details to support a planning application, however, it should be read in conjunction with any other ecological surveys that have been undertaken for the site.

The approach to this assessment follows best practice published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2013 & 2015) and the British Standards Institution (BSI, 2013). Details of individual survey methods and associated supporting information are provided in Section 2.

1.2 Site Description

The site comprised a detached barn located on approximately 0.02ha of hardstanding. The footprint of the building extending to approximately 0.006ha within the site boundary. The site is located on the northern outskirts of the village of Baslow, Derbyshire (central grid reference SK 25245 73266) and is proposed for redevelopment into a two-storey residential building.

Located in the Peak District National Park, the surrounding land use is dominated by pastureland and moorland. A network of hedgerows connects the surrounding farmland with the open areas of moorland interspersed with areas of woodland. Calver Road (A623) is located 210m to the west of the site with the linear feature of the River Derwent running parallel... to the western boundary of the road. The small residential villages of Baslow and Curbar are located 250m to the south and 1.2km to the north of the site respectively.

The site location is illustrated on the location map in Figure 1 below.

**Figure 1: Location map**

![Location Map](image)

*© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey*

### 1.3 Zone of Influence

The geographical extent of the potential impact of a proposed development is known as the Zone of Influence. The Zone is determined by the nature of the development and also in relation to individual species, depending on their habitat requirements, mobility and distances indicated in any best practice guideline. In regards to bats the Zone of Influence is considered to be the site itself and any connecting habitat links suitable for use as commuting and foraging corridors.

1.4 Planning Context and Legislation

The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 requires that when assessing a planning application all Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) must consider potential impacts on biodiversity that may result from the proposals. In addition to this, county and borough councils typically have biodiversity policies within their Local Development Frameworks that they must also comply with.

In practice, this means that potential impacts on designated sites, priority species and habitats such as those listed on the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (formerly the UK Biodiversity Action Plan) and species that receive legal direct protection (typically via the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and/or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) are all material planning considerations.

In relation to European Protected Species, the LPA requires sufficient information about likely impacts and mitigation or compensatory measures to satisfy the three Habitats Directive tests, the most relevant to ecological reports being that which relates to the Favourable Conservation Status of the species in question.

Appendix A provides a definition of “protected or priority species” for the purposes of this report, and Appendix B provides details on the legislation for species relevant to this site. 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment

Due to the nature and extent of the proposed works and dominance of the building footprint within the site boundary, the main focus of the survey was for roosting bats. A daytime bat inspection was carried out with survey methods following current good practice guidelines published by the Bat Conservation Trust (Collins (ed), 2016). The assessment comprised a visual inspection of the building on site, including any internal areas.

The location and description of any potential roost features (PRFs) such as holes, crevices or internal voids that could potentially be used by roosting bats were recorded and a search was made for any evidence of bat presence such as droppings or feeding remains. Binoculars, high-powered torches and endoscopes were used, where necessary, to facilitate more detailed inspections of individual features.

2.1.1 Assessment Criteria

Based on the number, location and type of any potential roost features, the building was categorised as having negligible, low, moderate or high potential for roosting bats, or confirmed roost where direct evidence of bat presence was encountered. The overall roost category assigned to the building must be determined by the most suitable feature present, so that a building with lots of very poor features would be categorised as negligible or low potential but if there is also one very suitable feature it would be categorised as moderate or high potential. The roosting potential assigned to each building will be used to inform the need for subsequent nocturnal Bat Activity Surveys required to confirm presence/likely absence of roosting bats.

Evaluation of the building’s roost potential is necessarily subjective and relies on the professional judgment of the surveyor; however, the table below provides a useful guide to how this is informed.

Table 1: Guidelines for assessing roost and habitat suitability (Collins (ed), 2016)

| Status | Typical characteristics | |-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Negligible potential | • Modern construction / immature trees\
| | • Lack of access points for bats\
| | • Situated within very poor-quality foraging habitat\
| | • High levels of external lighting | | Low potential | • Small number of minor hole / crevices features suitable for opportunistic roosting\
| | • Lack of roof voids or small cluttered roof spaces\
| | • Features obscured by dense cobwebs\
| | • Unlikely to support breeding or hibernating bats\
| | • Situated within poor quality foraging habitat |

### Status | Typical characteristics

--- | --- **Moderate potential** | • One or more hole / crevice features suitable for roosting, e.g. damaged soffits, uneven roof tiles\
• Access into large, dark internal spaces such as roof voids\
• Situated within or near to moderate/good quality foraging habitat

**High potential** | • Old buildings / mature or veteran trees\
• Structures with large, uncluttered roof voids\
• Traditional brick, stone or timber framed barns\
• Features suitable for large numbers of bats and/or several different species\
• Types of structure suitable for hibernation, e.g. caves, tunnels, ice houses etc\
• Low level of disturbance by humans\
• Little / no external lighting\
• Situated within good quality foraging habitat

**Confirmed Roost** | Bats seen or heard within the roost feature during the survey\
Bat droppings, particularly if piled rather than scattered\
Feeding remains such as moth wings\
Existing record of roost at that location

The overall value of the site for bats was also assessed, as shown in Table 2: Table 2: Guidance for assessing the overall value of potential development sites for bats (Collins (ed), 2016)

| Site Status | Description | |-------------|-------------| | | • No features likely to be used by bats | | | • Small number of potential roost sites but unlikely to be suitable for maternity roosts or hibernacula | | | • Isolated habitat that could be used by foraging bats | | | • Isolated site not connected by prominent linear features to suitable other/adjacent foraging habitats | | | • Several potential roost sites in buildings, trees or other structures | | | • Habitat suitable for foraging bats (e.g. trees, water, scrub, grassland present) | | | • Site is connected with the wider landscape by features that could be used by foraging/commuting bats (e.g. gardens backed by scrub or line of trees) | | | • Site includes high quality foraging habitat (e.g. broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses, parkland with mature trees and rough grass) | | | • Site is connected with the wider landscape by strong linear features that could be used by commuting bats (e.g. hedgerows, river valleys) | | | • Site is close to known roosts | | | • Bats recorded or observed using an area for foraging or commuting close to a potential roost |

2.2 Scoping for Protected and Priority Species

The habitats present were assessed for their potential to support any legally protected or otherwise notable species and any incidental sightings or field signs discovered during the surveys were recorded. This included an assessment of the building for the potential to support nesting birds.

All British wildlife and countryside legislation, policy and guidance were taken into consideration including:

- The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);
- The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended);
- EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC;
- The Protection of Badgers Act 1992;
- The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;
- The Hedgerow Regulations 1997; • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and • The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (formerly known as UK BAP).

2.3 Surveyors

The Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment (PBRA) was undertaken on the 22nd June 2020 by Michelle Cullimore-Pike MSc BSc (Hons) (Class licence: 2017-28061-CLS-CLS). Michelle is appropriately qualified for the surveys based on the CIEEM competencies for species survey (CIEEM, 2013).

2.4 Limitations

2.4.1 Survey Methods

It should be noted that while a surveyor may be able to confirm presence of a bat roost where evidence such as droppings or feeding remains are found in accessible areas, it is not always possible to rule out presence of bats based on a daytime survey alone. Pipistrelle species *Pipistrellus sp.* in particular tend to roost in small crevices within walls or the roof structure so that evidence of their presence would not be found without carrying out a more destructive search of potential roost features.

Daytime surveys should be considered a means of identifying the suitability of a site for use by roosting bats and determining the scope of any more detailed follow-up surveys, rather than necessarily comprising the full extent of survey that may be required.

2.4.2 Lifespan of Data

The results and recommendations contained within this report are considered to be valid for up to two years from the date of survey, assuming that there are no significant changes to the site condition or management within this period. After this period, or should the site conditions change, an update may be required in order to inform ecological constraints to development proposals and/or accompany a planning submission. 3 RESULTS

3.1 Site Assessment

3.1.1 Habitats

The habitats on site were dominated by the barn structure, surrounded by an area of concrete hardstanding (approximately 4m wide x 1m deep) and shingle covered pathway. A large log pile was located adjacent to the southern elevation of the barn.

A small area of cut grassland was located adjacent to the northern elevation of the barn, dominated by perennial ryegrass *Lolium perenne* and cock’s-foot *Dactylis glomerata*, with rarely occurring common nettle *Urtica dioica*, common thistle *Cirsium vulgare* and bramble *Rubus fruticosus*. Immature ash *Fraxinus excelsior* and elder *Sambucus nigra* saplings were growing up against the wall of the northern elevation.

3.1.2 Bats

*Barn - External Building Assessment*

The dressed natural stone barn was a single storey building noted to be in good repair at the time of the survey. A metal roller garage door had been installed approximately four years ago on the western elevation, providing the main access point into the building. Small gaps (approximately 2cm-5cm wide) were present between the brickwork and the metal uprights of the roller door. A crack was present in the brickwork on the northern elevation, which extended into the wall cavity. The rest of the brickwork was noted to be in good repair with no other gaps or cracks in the mortar of the walls.

The pitched slate roof had several slipped and lifted tiles, with a small section of missing mortar at the base of the ridge tiles. Plastic guttering was fitted to the base of the small overhanging eave, which was well mortared to the wall top with no fascias or soffits present. Gaps in the mortar, approximately 4cm wide to 30cm wide, were located between the roof tiles and the wall top on both the northern and southern gable ends. Although the gaps created by the missing mortar extended the depth of the wall top, they were sealed internally and did not provide access into the barn. Eastern pitch of the barn roof, showing missing mortar on gable end.

External and internal view of the crack in the brickwork on the northern elevation.

Lifted and missing tile on gable end (blue circle) and small section of missing mortar under ridge on western pitch (red circle).

Gap between stone walls and uprights of the garage roller door.

**Barn – Internal Building Assessment**

Internally the barn was open construction to the machine cut wooden ridge beam approximately 3.5m from ground level. Tongue and groove wood panelling lined the interior of the roof. The external slates were fixed directly to the panelling with no gaps or lining between the two. The internal gable ends of the building were tightly mortared, with no gaps or crevices. A build-up of cobwebs was present around the ridge beam of the building. The exposed stone walls were well mortared and in good repair with an exposed mortared wall top. The lower half of the northern section of the barn was whitewashed where historically the building had been used as a horse stable.

The barn was in regular use for garden machinery and tool storage, with a wood log storage section in the southern area of the structure. Internal open construction of barn with exposed beams and tongue and groove cladding.

Tightly mortared gable ends and well pointed stone walls

No evidence of roosting bats was found during the survey. All potential bat access points and bat roost features are shown on Figure 2.

Three previous records of EPS licences were recorded online (National Biodiversity Network and Magic), within 2km of the site. The closest of which was an EPS licence for the disturbance to a resting place for common pipistrelle *Pipistrellus pipistrellus* and brown-long eared *Plecotus auritus* bats, located 280m to the south of the site. 3.1.3 **Foraging and Commuting Bats**

No foraging and commuting habitats were associated with the site. However, the garden area surrounding the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site offered foraging and commuting opportunities (hedgerows and mature trees). In addition, the site owner confirmed that the main residential house located approximately 90m to the west of the site, is thought to support a bat roost.

The habitats surrounding the site comprised mainly arable and pastureland with interconnecting treelines and hedgerows, providing good foraging and commuting habitat for bats. In addition, the tree lined River Derwent to the west of the site also provides foraging and commuting habitats within the wider landscape.

3.1.4 **Breeding Birds**

Internally seven historic swallow *Hirundo rustica* nests were present along the wooden beams, with droppings evident down the walls and along the wall tops. There was no evidence of recent use and it is likely that birds have been unable to enter the barn since the installation of the garage door over four years ago.

3.2 **Protected and Priority Species**

Due to the lack of aquatic habitat and connecting ditches, the site was not considered suitable to support white-clawed crayfish *Austropotamobius pallipes*, otter *Lutra lutra* or water vole *Arvicola amphibius*. The dominance of the building, hardstanding and gravelled path meant that the terrestrial habitats on site were considered sub-optimal to support great crested newts (GCN) *Triturus cristatus* and reptiles (herptiles). The log pile in the south of the site and drystone wall on the eastern boundary of the site had limited refuge and hibernation potential for herptiles. However, the regular disturbance of the log pile for chopping and storage of the chopped wood inside the barn, means it is highly unlikely that it would be used as a refuge for an extended period of time.

Following an online review of OS mapping three waterbodies were identified within 500m of the site. A garden pond located 63m to the south west and a small waterbody located 400m to the north of the site. The latter of which was noted to be dry in more recent aerial photography. A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) was carried out on the garden pond, which was assessed as having a score of 0.57, “Below Average”, in addition the waterbody had steep sided concrete banks, with no emergent vegetation and therefore, was considered sub-optimal aquatic habitat to support breeding GCN. The third ephemeral waterbody was located 380m to the west of the site. However, the River Derwent is located between the waterbody and the site, which is considered a barrier to dispersal. The habitat immediately surrounding the site was dominated by closely mown amenity grassland, considered sub-optimal for commuting amphibians and reptiles.

No evidence of badgers *Meles meles* were identified on site and the surrounding habitat (flat amenity grassland) within 30m of the site was considered sub-optimal to support sett excavation.

The habitats on site also offers limited suitability for foraging and commuting hedgehogs *Erinaceus europaeus* which is a Priority Species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Frameworks (formerly UKBAP) and also a Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) species. Due to the regular disturbance of the log piles in the south of the site it is unlikely that hedgehogs would have the opportunity to hibernate within this.

Due to a lack of suitable habitats, the site is not considered likely to support any other protected or priority species. 4 EVALUATION

4.1 Designated sites

Two statutory designated sites were identified within 2km of the site, the Eastern Peak District Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Jumble Coppice SSSI, located 695m to the north east and 1.9km to the south east respectively. Due to the confined nature of the proposed works, it is considered highly unlikely that they would result in a direct impact to any of the designated sites.

4.2 Habitats

The flora recorded on site was considered to have low botanical value within the wider landscape. Due to the lack of floral habitat areas identified it is not considered necessary to assess the site under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. In addition, the plants identified on site are considered common and widespread throughout the local area.

4.3 Protected and Priority Species

The site has limited potential to support protected and/or notable species due to the limited nature of the habitats present on the site. Taking into account the findings of the survey, further consideration has only been given to bats, birds and commuting mammals in the rest of this report.

4.3.1 Bats

No evidence of bats was found within the buildings, however features with some potential to support roosting bats were noted. As such, the barn has been assessed as having low potential to support roosting bats. In accordance with the industry standard guidance (Collins (ed), 2016) a single nocturnal activity survey is required to confirm presence or likely absence of roosting bats.

Section 5 of this report provides further recommendations in regards to nocturnal bat activity surveys.

4.3.2 Foraging and Commuting Bats

The site was assessed as having negligible potential for foraging and commuting bats. Due to the confined nature of the proposed works, it is considered that there will be no negative impact to the surrounding foraging and commuting habitat. As such, no further consideration has been given to foraging and commuting bats.

4.3.3 Breeding Birds

The barn was considered to offer limited potential for nesting birds, given the lack of ingress points, and the overall good condition of the roof. In addition to this, all evidence of nesting bird activity was historic and no evidence of current activity was identified on site during the survey. The lack of vegetation on site also offers very limited potential for nesting birds. Section 5 of this report provides general recommendations which are deemed appropriate to ensure no impacts to nesting birds are encountered through the future development of the site. 5 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Development Proposals

Proposed works currently include the redevelopment of the existing building into a two-storey residential building. The existing building footprint will be retained with the boundary of the site defined by a new dwarf stone wall. Soft landscaping is currently proposed along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The concrete and shingle hardstanding surrounding the building will be replaced with a mix of patio and gravel hardstanding.

5.2 Protected and Priority Species

5.2.1 Bats

Bat species and their roosts are fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through inclusion in Section 1 (Schedule 5). Bats are also a UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework species.

In accordance with industry standard guidelines (Collins (ed), 2016), the barn was classified as having low potential to support roosting bats. As such, a single nocturnal activity survey is required in order to determine presence or likely absence of roosting bats. Bat activity surveys can only be undertaken during the main bat survey season, from May to September (inclusive), under suitable weather conditions. Surveys on a low potential building should be undertaken before August if possible.

The nocturnal bat activity survey will comprise either a dusk or dawn survey which will last for approximately two hours, with dusk surveys commencing approximately 15 minutes before sunset, and dawn surveys concluding at, or shortly after sunrise. It is recommended that two surveyors will be required for the survey, including at least one licenced bat ecologist, to allow all possible bat entry/exit points to be observed.

Should the presence of roosting bats be confirmed during the activity surveys two further nocturnal surveys will be required to inform a European Protected Species (EPS) licence. In accordance with guidelines a minimum of two weeks must be left between each subsequent survey. The EPS licence will be required prior to any works occurring to affected buildings that may impact on or disturb the bat roost/s. The surveys used to inform the licence must be carried out within the most recent survey season prior to application. EPS licences can only be applied for once all necessary planning permissions and associated bat related conditions have been discharged, where possible to do so in advance of works. If no bats are found to be roosting within the barn during the activity survey development works may proceed without further constraints related to bats. However, this approach may be subject to approval from the Local Planning Authority. 5.2.2 Breeding Birds

All wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As such, the barn should be searched prior to works to ensure that there are no active nests, or nest building behaviour being exhibited. Due to the limited access into the barn for birds and the historic nature of the swallow nests it is considered highly unlikely that any breeding birds will be present within the barn. However, should any active nests be identified these must be protected from disturbance until fledging is complete, using suitable barriers where necessary.

The typical bird breeding season is considered to be March to September (inclusive). However, Contractors should remain vigilant throughout the year as some species are known to breed year-round.

5.3 Hedgehogs

Precautionary measures should be implemented during site works to ensure there are no negative impacts to small mammals (including hedgehogs):

- Open trenches or pits must be covered over at night or left with a sloping end, to prevent mammals such as hedgehog from falling in and becoming trapped;
- Pipes over 150mm will need to be capped off at night to prevent mammals from using them for shelter;
- Night works should be avoided where possible with illumination of works kept to a minimum;

Due to the installation of the wall around the property the proposed development will result in a dispersal barrier for hedgehog. Although this will not have significant impact to hedgehogs due to the retention of extensive foraging and commuting opportunities in the adjacent gardens a gap should be left under the access gate in the west of the site (approximately 13cm high) to allow continued use of the area by hedgehogs.

5.4 Ecological Enhancement

National planning policy recommends that all developments incorporate ecological enhancement where possible, this should include locally sourced native species being used where possible for soft landscaping, with ornamental varieties kept to a minimum. Species including common hawthorn *Crataegus monogyna*, guelder rose *Viburnum opulus*, dogwood *Cornus sanguinea*, rowan *Sorbus aucuparia* and holly *Ilex aquifolium* are recommended. These plants have been specifically chosen for their value to birds, insects and other small animals and will help to enhance the biodiversity on site and add a net gain, post-development.

Following completion of the nocturnal bat survey if an EPS mitigation licence is not required, consideration should be given to integrating suitable bat boxes into the new building on a south to south easterly elevation. A box such as an Ibstock Enclosed Bat Box would be suitable, located as close to the eaves of the building as possible. Alternatively, access tiles could be installed within the new roof to allow access into the void between the new roof felt and external tiles. This would only be possible should non-breathable membrane be used within the new roof structure or if a bat rafter box is installed within the new roof void. 6 CONCLUSIONS

Table 3 provides an overview of the potential mitigation measures, recommendations and/or further survey work that may be required with regard to the proposals associated with the development.

Table 3. Overview – Potential mitigation measures, recommendations and/or further survey work

| Feature | Recommendations | Further survey required? | |------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Protected and Notable species | | | | Roosting Bats | The barn has been assessed as having low bat roosting potential. | A single nocturnal bat activity is required. | | Breeding Birds | Historic evidence of nesting birds recorded on site. Precautionary approach to works required. | The barn should be searched prior to works commencing to ensure that there are no active nests, or nest building behaviour being exhibited, particularly where works are to be undertaken during the bird breeding season of March to September (inclusive). Contractors must remain vigilant throughout the period of works as some species are known to nest all year round. | 7 REFERENCES

British Standards Institution (2013) BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – code of practice for planning and development. BSI Standards Ltd, London

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2013) Competencies for Species Surveys in Britain and Ireland; Overview. CIEEM, Winchester. Online [Available at] http://www.cieem.net/competencies-for-species-survey-css-

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2013) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. CIEEM, Winchester

Collins J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys For Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2019) The National Planning Policy Framework. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Website. http://www.magic.gov.uk/

RSPB (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4. RSPB, Sandy, Beds.

Stace, C.S. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles, 3rd edition. University Press, Cambridge. APPENDIX A : Protected and Priority Species

Legal protection is afforded to particular habitats and species (as well as designated sites). The legislation, and the habitats and species listed, vary between the different jurisdictions. Certain habitats and species are also considered to have some level of nature conservation importance, due to factors such as their rarity, vulnerability or declining population/status. This document uses the term ‘priority habitats’ and ‘priority species’, as they are those which should be considered as priorities for conservation (it should not be confused with priority habitats and species as listed in the EU Habitats Directive). Priority habitats and species are defined as those which are:

1. listed as a national priority for conservation (such as those listed as habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity);

2. listed as a local priority for conservation, for example in the relevant local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP);

3. Red Listed using International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria (e.g. in an all-Ireland Red List, in one of the UK Species Status Project reviews, in the Species of Conservation Concern Red List, Birds of Conservation Concern in Wales, or BWI/ RSPB Red List for Ireland and Northern Ireland (Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2014 to 2019) or, where a more recent assessment of the taxonomic group has not yet been undertaken, listed in a Red Data Book);

4. listed as Near Threatened or Amber Listed e.g. in an all-Ireland Red List, in one of the UK Species Status Project reviews, in Birds of Conservation Concern in Wales, in the Species of Conservation Concern Amber List or BirdWatch Ireland (BWI)/RSPB Amber List for Ireland and Northern Ireland (Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2014 to 2019);

5. listed as a Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce species (e.g. in one of the Species Status Project reviews) or listed as a Nationally Notable species where a more recent assessment of the taxonomic group has not yet been undertaken; and/or

6. endemic to a country or geographic location (it is appropriate to recognise endemic sub-species, phenotypes, or cultural behaviours of a population that are unique to a particular place).

Most protected species are also considered to be priority species, although there are some exceptions. There are numerous priority habitats and species which do not receive any legal protection.

Note that the terms ‘priority habitat’ and ‘priority species’ used in this document differ from the following uses of the same terms:

a) These terms were previously used to denote those habitats and species afforded the highest level of priority for conservation under the UK BAP; this has been superseded by the lists of habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity. in England under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, Section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, or their equivalents in Scotland (Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy and the Scottish Biodiversity List15) and Ireland (Actions for Biodiversity – Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan 2017-202116; and Valuing Nature – A Biodiversity Strategy for Northern Ireland to 2020).

b) The terms ‘Priority Natural Habitat Type’ and ‘Priority Species’ are used to denote specific lists of habitats and species under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; these are defined in Articles 1(d) and 1(h) respectively of the Habitats Directive. APPENDIX B : Relevant Legislation

The following text provides information on the key legislation, which is applicable to this survey.

The main wildlife legislation in the UK is as follows:

European Legislation

The relevant sections of the EC Directives and international conventions are summarised below:

- EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitat Directive 1992) as amended (92/43/EEC)

The Directive requires Member States to introduce a range of measures including the protection of species listed in the Annexes. The 189 habitats listed in Annex I of the Directive and the 788 species listed in Annex II, are to be protected by means of a network of sites. Once adopted, these are designated by Member States as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and along with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the EC Birds Directive. The Habitats Directive introduces the precautionary principle; that disturbance to the designated sites can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

- EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive 1979) as amended (79/409/EEC)

The main provisions of the Directive includes; the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of all wild bird species across their distributional range.

- Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979)

The Convention imposes legal obligations on contracting parties, protecting over 500 wild plant species and more than 1000 wild animal species.

UK Legislation

The sections of UK legislation considered to be of relevance include:

- The Conservation (Natural Habitats, and c.) Regulations 2017 (as amended)

This transposes the Habitats Directive into national law. The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of ‘European sites’, and the protection of ‘European protected species.

- The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA) This consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) in Great Britain.

- The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW)

This act strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation.

- The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

**Species-Specific Legislation**

Species specific legislation is provided in the Table below:

**Species-Specific Wildlife Legislation**

| Feature/Species | Legislation | It is an offence to: | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Breeding birds | Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. | • Kill; • Injure; • Take; any wild bird, their eggs or nest (with the exception of those on Sch. 2). | | Bats | Sch. 5 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). | • Intentionally or deliberately kill, inure or capture (or take) bats: • Deliberately disturb bats (whether in a roost or not); • Recklessly disturb roosting bats or obstruct access to their roosts; • Damage or destroy bat roosts. |

In addition, species and habitats listed on the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (formally the UK BAP) are also considered. Details on these species and habitats can be found at: [http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705).